What a happy coincidence for House Republicans that the Supreme Court's conservative bloc found an excuse to help preserve their party's congressional majority, just in time for the 2026 midterm elections. Without the timely intervention of the right-wing justices, a Democratic wave loomed over the White House and Capitol Hill — which threatened not only the plans of the Trump administration but the corrupt conduct of the high court itself.

Masterminded by Chief Justice John Roberts and written by his ideological sidekick Justice Samuel Alito, last week's decision in Louisiana v. Callais not only eviscerated the last remaining protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act but immediately propelled a fresh wave of partisan redistricting across the South. This was the entirely predictable result of a series of Supreme Court decisions that have undermined racial equality while encouraging white-majority legislatures to redraw congressional maps as a means to ensure perpetual power for the GOP.

And all this was done with self-righteous zeal in the name of "racial neutrality," good government and Constitutional jurisprudence.

The court's critics have noted how little remains of those traditional values after two decades of the Roberts court. Since the majority overturned Roe v. Wade, women saw yet another step in the diminution of their control over their own bodies and health, an attack on their autonomy that is already costing innocent lives in the most backward states. Now in Callais, Black and Latino Americans see the razing of minority political power in the most segregated regions and the return of Jim Crow, delivered by a party that countenances unabashed racism in its ranks.

Alito's justification for abandoning decades of precedent — and the clear textual purpose of the Voting Rights Act — made little logical sense. Rather than determining whether a state's congressional district map imposed the effect of a racial hierarchy on state voters, he ruled, the court would demand proof of racist intent on the part of legislators who drew that map. As Justice Elena Kagan pointed out in her dissent, the impossibility of knowing or proving what was in the minds of those legislators is obvious. It is also a completely invented standard.

Alito claimed wrongly that recent presidential elections show that the nation has progressed beyond the remedies imposed by the Voting Rights Act, because Black voter turnout was higher than white turnout in two of the most recent presidential elections. Of course, turnout for congressional elections is different in midterms — and the years that Alito cherrypicked to make his argument happened to be those when Barack Obama, America's first Black major-party presidential nominee, was on the ballot.

But with their ire provoked by what Alito described as an "unconstitutional racial gerrymander" in Louisiana, the justices feel justified in even the most dishonest discourse. That is why both Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh could support this devastating decision, despite having voted precisely the opposite way only three years ago. In the case of Allen v. Alabama, court found that state legislators had discriminated against the state's Black voters by dividing them up among seven districts to prevent the election of more than one Black member of Congress. Kavanaugh and Roberts, along with the court's liberal minority, rejected the state's argument — identical to Alito's argument now — that the plaintiffs had to prove racist intent to trigger the Voting Rights Act's protections.

The result was a new congressional map in Alabama, drawn by a special master, that offered Black voters the opportunity to elect two members — who both happen to be Democrats.

What has changed since Kavanaugh and Roberts endorsed that wholly just outcome? Only two things: The 2024 election of Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both the House and Senate, which Republicans on the court plainly aim to preserve against increasingly long odds in this year's midterm election — and the likelihood that if Democrats regain the majority in either or both chambers, then this historically corrupt Supreme Court majority will find itself confronting investigative scrutiny and legislative challenge. Should Democrats control the Senate, they will also face a strong possibility that Trump, the authoritarian they have so brazenly empowered, will be unable to nominate any more constitutional vandals of their ilk.

These right-wing justices, despite their whine about "racial gerrymandering," showed that they have no problem with partisan gerrymandering that has an undeniable racial impact on minority voters. It is fair to assume that among the reasons, beyond their own ideological loyalties, is the urge to protect their own misconduct from the embarrassing oversight that will surely ensue when power changes hands again.

Republicans on social media are admitting the truth behind Democratic accusations about the SAVE Act — namely, that they want to pass the SAVE Act requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The writing on the wall,” tweeted Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida in a message in which Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is tagged. Luna attached a flowchart which showed two paths from “Gain majority”: The first, in which the SAVE Act is not saved, equals “lose majority,” “resist other team’s agenda” and needing to fundraise “back to gain majority.”

The flowchart also shows, as an alternative if the SAVE Act fails, is a “one-party state.” This, perhaps not coincidentally, is what historians and political scientists observe could occur to Republicans’ advantage if Trump nationalizes the 2026 midterms. Because Americans with low incomes, disabilities and other disadvantages often struggle to obtain citizenship documents and photo ID despite being legitimate citizens and voters, scholars are concerned the SAVE Act would disproportionately target Democratic constituencies.

Conservative commentator Tomi Lahren, who once said “I don’t care if someone is a liberal, conservative, an atheist, or whatever: don’t be the mean girl,” tweeted “Yep” in response to Luna’s flowchart post to Thune. In a similar spirit, conservative activist Scott Presler posted on Twitter/X and told Thune that “if you do not bring the SAVE America Act to the Senate floor and ultimately pass the bill into law, Republicans will lose both the House and Senate this November.” After threatening that Republicans will not vote unless the SAVE Act is passed, Presler ordered Thune to “either wield power and be remembered as a hero in the majority or lose it all with a democrat takeover as the minority.”

According to one veteran political journalist, this is Republicans “quiet part out loud.”

“The quiet part out loud,” tweeted New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni on Wednesday morning while sharing Luna’s flowchart. “Fail to pass Save Act -> lose majority.”

In a similar vein as Karni, Politico columnist Jonathan Martin pointed out in regard to Presler’s tweet that there were “14K likes for arguing Repubs will lose midterms if they don’t pass a voter ID and citizenship bill. Not, ya know, bc the president is hovering at or below 40% and Dems have a massive off-year turnout advantage in this era.”

He concluded, “Preposterous, sure, but is only gonna put more pressure on Sen Rs bc many of their voters are swallowing this nonsense.”

Martin posted his tweet on Tuesday at 9:18 PM Eastern Time. As of the time of this writing, at 1:10 PM ET on the following Wednesday (roughly 16 hours later), it has 54K likes.

In addition to political journalists, some of Trump’s fellow Republicans are alarmed that the president is planning on stealing the upcoming midterm elections.

“This is the first instance in which I could begin to believe that something truly spectacular is going to happen in which our 2026 midterm elections are not administered like past elections have been,” Stephen Richer, a former Republican county recorder of Maricopa County when Trump attempted to steal the 2020 election, recently told The Atlantic’s David Frum.

“I am worried, as I have said and others have been pointing out, about whether we will even have free and fair elections in 2026, let alone in 2028,” conservative historian Robert Kagan recently told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. “I think Trump has a plan to disrupt those elections, and I don't think he's willing to allow Democrats to take control of one or both houses as could happen in a free election.”

Former Republican consultant and Pulitzer Prize winner George F. Will summed up Trump’s midterm schemes by comparing them to his failed efforts to prove the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

“Trump’s batting average?” Will wrote “.016. In Arizona, the most exhaustively scrutinized state, a private firm selected by Trump’s advocates confirmed Trump’s loss, finding 99 additional Biden votes and 261 fewer Trump votes.” As such Will wrote of Trump, “The man who never alters his opinion is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind.”

Conservative CNBC "Squawk Box" host Joe Kernen appeared to give away the Republican gameplan with new proposals around the SAVE Act.

Speaking to Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) on Friday, Kernen said that without the SAVE Act, "Democrats will never lose again."

The conversation initially focused on the immigration debate and a bipartisan bill crafted before the 2024 election, which Republicans ultimately blocked at President Donald Trump's direction.

Once Coons brought up that measure, Kernen quickly changed the subject to cite "conspiracy theories why you'd let in 10 million undocumented Democrats."

"They're not Democrats," said Coons said seemingly confused and laughing uncomfortably.

"I'm kidding," Kernen claimed before adding, "I'm saying that's the whole — that — and you don't want — no ID voting at the same time you let in all these illegal."

"I have to show an ID every time I vote in Delaware," Coons said.

Most states require some form of identification when voting, and most also require ID for voter registration. The GOP bill would force voters to bring an "enhanced" ID to the polls.

"But you see what I'm saying," continued Kernen. "You see what I'm saying? Democrats will never lose again if left to their own devices."

"That isn't true, as you well know," Coons replied.

"God help," said Kernen.

The GOP's Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act would usher in a slate of voting restrictions beyond voter ID laws. The ID portion of the restrictions includes not only the requirement to use a photo ID to vote, but also the requirement to use only the new REAL ID. Such an ID costs around $50, depending on the state, so voting would no longer be free.

REAL ID is a new identification system being rolled out nationwide, but it isn't required in most states. The "Real ID" act was passed 20 years ago and gave citizens two decades to prepare for enhanced IDs to get on a plane. While airlines prefer it, fliers who don't have one yet can still get on a plane, but they are fined $45 for not having the enhanced "Real ID."

IDs such as a military ID, a student ID, a birth certificate, a Social Security Card, a non-enhanced driver's license, or a non-enhanced state ID would all be unusable under the SAVE Act.

Several pro-women groups have also noted that in some cases a photo ID doesn't match other forms of ID, such as a birth certificate, because women change their names when they get married. It would add additional requirements for married women to go through the process to ensure all of their documents match before registering to vote.

Trump has also called for nationalized elections, where his federal agents would take over the voting in Democratic states.

Aggressively promoted by President Donald Trump, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act (AKA the SAVE America Act or SAVE Act) is drawing strong criticism not only from Democrats, but from some GOP lawmakers as well. Four Senate Republicans, in early June, joined Democrats in voting against advancing the bill: Maine's Susan Collins, North Carolina's Thom Tillis, Alaska's Lisa Murkowski, and former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky). But according to NOTUS reporter Al Weaver, the SAVE America Act refuses to die — even though some Republican lawmakers wish that it would.

"The SAVE America Act just won't go away for Senate Republicans, no matter how many times they think it's dead and gone," Weaver reports in NOTUS. "Republican lawmakers have been locked in a monthslong battle over the conservative voting bill as it has become evident they don't have the votes in the upper chamber to pass the bill, no matter the avenue. This has left members miffed — they want to finally turn the page, but are again faced with a zombie."

If it became law, the SAVE America Act would require voters to prove that they are U.S. citizens. Regular state-issued driver's licenses would not be enough to prove citizenship; voters would have to present another document as well, such as a U.S. passport or a birth certificate. But critics of the bill are noting that many Americans don't own passports and that millions of married women would lose their right to vote, as their married names likely differ from the names on their birth certificates.

A Senate Republican, interviewed NOTUS on condition of anonymity, said of the SAVE America Act, "It just keeps coming back. It's like the 'Night of the Living Dead'…. There is a frustration. It's not just the president. We have other members who keep pushing this when they know.… we don't have the votes. I don't know how you can be more clear than that. I don't know why they keep pushing something that's basically not possible."

Trump, Weaver observes, "tried to resurrect the issue last week by calling for it — alongside hundreds of billions of dollars in defense priorities — to be part of a third party-line budget reconciliation package."

Another Senate Republican, also interviewed on condition of anonymity, told NOTUS, "I don't know why they keep pushing something that's basically not possible. It doesn't get us votes. Literally, we lose votes with it."

On February 11, the SAVE America Act passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, 218–213, along largely partisan lines. Only one House Democrat, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), voted with Republicans. But the bill stalled after reaching the Senate.

A Senate GOP aide told NOTUS, "We agree on voter ID, but the bill Trump wants is far beyond that scope…. It's taken on a life of its own. It's not rooted in reality and it’s not rooted in what we can actually achieve."

In the background of the failures around the reflecting pool and the Iran war agreement, Republicans see another pending disaster on the horizon.

President Donald Trump has asked Republicans to jam through the "SAVE Act," even if that means they will sink the crucial reauthorization of the spying bill known as FISA. The SAVE Act stands for the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act.

FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, was established to ensure there is a mandated legal process for Americans who come under the physical and electronic surveillance of the U.S. government. Section 702 has become a larger question because it allows for warrantless surveillance of foreign targets that can also result in the collection of Americans' communications.

The Hill reported on Friday that Republicans are feeling "dismay" amid the president's deal with Iran that appears to be already falling apart.

In a separate report, lawmakers made it clear that combining FISA with the SAVE Act was "dumb."

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) didn't seem optimistic, saying that attaching the SAVE Act might work, but he called it "a Hail Mary."

He added, Trump “doesn’t seem to understand the Senate.”

There's a good reason to mention the Senate. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) told Punch Bowl News on that it would be "unrealistic" to try and attach the two.

Trump has implied he's willing to veto legislation if he doesn't like what the legislature passes.

“I certainly would hope if we can get FISA off the floor, he would sign it," Thune said.

Rep. Tom Massie (R-Ky.) made it clear that he's a "no" on renewing the 702 piece of FISA.

“Why would we let the government spy on us in exchange for anything? After we trade the Fourth Amendment for parliamentary advantage, what shall we trade the First and Second Amendments for?” Massie wrote on X, calling it "dumb."

It presents a problem because Speaker Mike Johnson would need near-unanimous support from his party. If Massie is a "no" Johnson may not have the votes.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) has been a longtime advocate of the SAVE Act, writing, “No Save America. No FISA.”

Other Republicans are the opposite. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I-Calf.) said that it was downright "unacceptable" that FISA was allowed to lapse in the first place.

"This program is critical to our intelligence collection and national security, and you know, when it comes to the national security, safety of the American people, we need to put partisanship aside,” said Rep. Kiley.

“It’s already dragged on far too long. We had a short-term renewal, now it’s lapsed. This is just another example of the dysfunction of Congress that the American people are so frustrated with, and that now is putting the national security of our country at risk,” Kiley added.

A House Republican is drafting legislation to try to bypass Senate rules and advance President Donald Trump’s push to require enhanced voter identification. The bill would cost taxpayers $250 million over five years.

According to Politico, U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) is working on the “SAVE America Through REAL ID Act,” which would provide funds for lower-income voters to obtain a REAL ID, while encouraging states to require a REAL ID to vote.

“In order to address that one issue, we’ve created this grant program for states to use to help people who meet the income qualifications … to be able to get a free REAL ID,” Fedorchak told Politico.

Fedorchak hopes the $250 million price tag will make the legislation eligible to pass in the Senate under the reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority — thus potentially bypassing the need for any Democratic votes.

Fedorchak’s bill would be “an alternative to the proof-of-citizenship and voter-ID mandates in the original SAVE America Act that would likely be excluded from a party-line bill by the Senate parliamentarian,” Politico reports.

Politico’s Meredith Lee Hill reported that House GOP leaders were “scrambling to find ways to squeeze pieces of the SAVE America Act into their next party-line bill.” That would include “using funding carrots instead of policy mandates to clear the Senate parliamentarian.”

Despite repeated pressure from President Trump, as recently as Thursday afternoon, the SAVE America Act has stalled in the Senate. Trump wants that legislation to require all voters to show voter ID and proof of citizenship, while sharply narrowing the use of mail-in ballots. Trump is also pressing for the bill to ban “men in women’s sports,” and “transgender mutilization [sic] surgery for our children.”

Back in February the president vowed the SAVE America Act would pass into law, “one way or another.” Critics see the controversial bill as voter suppression legislation.

Democrats oppose the bill in part because it requires a passport or birth certificate to register to vote — something tens of millions of Americans do not currently have, according to voting rights groups. It also narrows generally accepted forms of photo ID to vote.

Others oppose it because it requires states to run their voter rolls through federal immigration databases, which reportedly have a high error rate. Critics also say that it creates a large unfunded administrative burden for states.

In April, Trump told Republicans that enacting the SAVE Act would “guarantee the midterms” — while claiming that was not the reason he was pushing the bill. “I don’t think you can politically exist if you’re not going to do voter ID and these things.”